Finnish Court: Open WiFi Owner Not Liable for File-sharing

Status
Not open for further replies.

raringcoder

Distinguished
Oct 27, 2011
27
0
18,580
0
This is analogous to me not "adquately protecting" my car from theft, then someone stealing it and running someone over...

Glad to see more places are rejecting the connection between IP / network to a particular person as sole proof of guilt.

Now all they need to do is target those inflated damages and debunk the 1 download = 1 lost sale argument.
 

NuclearShadow

Distinguished
Sep 20, 2007
670
0
18,940
2
This is proof that it isn't about just stopping piracy but rather suing for purely a profits gain.
Things have gotten so bad that they even target the people they know personally did not infringe on any copyright. This is unacceptable and I can't see even the most hardcore anti-pirate that I know agreeing with going that far.

Also why is it that they want us to respect their copyrights and yet time and time again show that they care nothing about other peoples belongings and ownership? A WiFi signal that comes from our network belongs to us and how dare they demand rightful control over something that is ours? Isn't that in essence the very thing they are crying victim about?
If you want people to respect your property perhaps its best to start respecting others first.
 

Sonny73N

Distinguished
Nov 30, 2011
8
0
18,510
0
99% of movies and music are sucks nowadays. It's not worth my time watching/listening leave alone paying for them. FYI (Y as in the anti-piracy people) I had bought the movie Forest Gump 3 times. First DVD got scratched, second got lost and the third was a Bluray disc which is somewhere I have no idea of. I would pay for it again because it's worth it but you, the freaking anti-piracy people have to understand that I, the normal working folk always got fooled into paying for crappy media a very high price while those suckass so-called actors/singers/producers making millions. Now you go berserk with the suing?
 

rantoc

Distinguished
Dec 17, 2009
550
0
18,930
0
So the "fair companies" wanted 6.000 euro for a 12 min period of file-sharing, that's 30.000 euro for one hour of file-sharing. I don't say file-sharing isn't a crime but the criminals here are the companies trying to charge that insanely loads of money to someone they even cant prove did the crime.

I sure as hell wont purchase a single track in the future, seeing where the money goes it makes me sick!

 

jankeke

Distinguished
Dec 16, 2011
44
0
18,580
0
I absolutely agree with Sonny73N.

When they make quality products, it sells very well. They make millions if not billions. But when a piece of shit doesn't sell it has to be the fault of pirates. And we all know how much shit they try to sell us ...

95 % of the music you hear sounds like it was somehow put together in one afternoon by a guy with a hangover, seriously ...
 

monkeysweat

Distinguished
Jan 27, 2009
83
0
18,590
1
one 12 minute instance 2 years ago? holy hell they must have a hard time tracking down the pirates there, what could you download in 12 minutes over a wifi connection that could get a 6000 eur burr up there ass about anyways? they would be lucky to get a couple CDs or half a movie -the case is actually for copyright infringement,, might be someone actually uploading instead of downloading, in which case typically even less than above could have been shared as uploading speed suxxor

what about all the other people that share files 24/7?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Unless your a Mickey D's or something like that, why would you leave your WIFI unsecure? It's so easy to turn on security, and you can get it done by somebody else for free or relatively cheap. I don't want anybody I don't know on my internet because A. I'm paying for it and B. I don't want every government agency watching my every move because somebody I don't know is using my internet connection.
 

monsta

Distinguished
Jun 26, 2008
90
0
18,580
0
Who wants to pay for music which is all auto tuned?
I wont buy it or even download it , waiting for this auto tune fad to go away, don't start me on movies most of them are garbage nowadays and then there is reality TV....meh
No wonder I play games
 

NuclearShadow

Distinguished
Sep 20, 2007
670
0
18,940
2
[citation][nom]kickmyjiminy[/nom]Unless your a Mickey D's or something like that, why would you leave your WIFI unsecure? It's so easy to turn on security, and you can get it done by somebody else for free or relatively cheap. I don't want anybody I don't know on my internet because A. I'm paying for it and B. I don't want every government agency watching my every move because somebody I don't know is using my internet connection.[/citation]

Some people still have no idea how to even make their network secure, Others simply do not mind if neighbors use it which is fully in their right to share if they wish. Regardless of the situation the person or business who leaves it unsecured is not the one breaking the copyrights. I don't see why your trying to villainize them simply because their WiFi was not protected.

If a person's car was stolen do you blame them because it wasn't parked in a locked garage?
This is the logic you are trying to use here.
 

XmortisX

Distinguished
Oct 30, 2011
18
0
18,560
0
These companies don't get it. You cannot come after someone cause they downloaded something on a IP address. Im sure the courts are getting tired of this and these companies need to get over it...there are pirates, your stuff will be cracked/hacked sooner or later. Deal with it. Maybe is they focused on putting out more quality products and didn't try to be greedy and patent troll everything this would not be a problem.
 

martel80

Distinguished
Dec 8, 2006
123
0
18,630
0
If you leave your gun unsecured and someone else uses it to commit a crime, you're not liable for the crime itself but you're still going to be punished.
The same should be true for unsecured internet connections. The court should ask you to prove that you at least tried to prevent your network from being used to commit a crime.

Opening up an unsecured hot spot in your network should not allow you to legally engage in unlimited scale piracy/cybercrime.
 

sunshine2012

Honorable
Jun 19, 2012
1
0
10,510
0
It would be great if authorities in Finland take a look at this Finnish company called " MyWOT". They are defaming the world and claiming that they are not responsible for the wrong reviews being written by their gang members (aka Powered users) on the website. They show no respect to any business owner who requests an investigation and also saying we don't response to any libel lawsuit unless we receive a court order from Finland. It is a huge disgrace for your country Finnish guys, you better take care of this libeling machine. (mywot.com)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
I Streaming Video & TVs 0
G Streaming Video & TVs 3
G Streaming Video & TVs 4
G Streaming Video & TVs 5
G Streaming Video & TVs 1
G Streaming Video & TVs 20
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 13
NduPlessis Streaming Video & TVs 11
Z Streaming Video & TVs 15
G Streaming Video & TVs 15
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 19
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 29
G Streaming Video & TVs 43
G Streaming Video & TVs 25
G Streaming Video & TVs 52
G Streaming Video & TVs 97
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 62
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 37
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 27
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 43

ASK THE COMMUNITY